VI LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND SCIENCE 227 



based, not upon literary and historical specula- 

 tions, but upon well-ascertained facts in the 

 departments of literature and history, tends to 

 exactly the same conclusion. 



For I find this much agreed upon by all 

 Biblical scholars of repute, that the story of the 

 Deluge in Genesis is separable into at least two 

 sets of statements ; and that, when the statements 

 thus separated are recombinecl in their proper 

 order, each set furnishes an account of the event, 

 coherent and complete within itself, but in some 

 respects discordant with that afforded by the other 

 set. This fact, as I understand, is not disputed. 

 Whether one of these is the work of an Elohist, 

 and the other of a Jehovist narrator ; whether 

 the two have been pieced together in this strange 

 fashion because, in the estimation of the compilers 

 and editors of the Pentateuch, they had equal 

 and independent authority, or not ; or whether 

 there is some other way of accounting for it are 

 questions the answers to which do not affect the 

 fact. If possible I avoid d priori arguments. 

 But still, I think it may be urged, without impru- 

 dence, that a narrative having this structure is 

 hardly such as might be expected from a writer 

 possessed of full and infallibly accurate knowledge. 

 Once more, it would seem that it is not necessarily 

 the mere inclination of the sceptical spirit to 

 question everything, or the wilful blindness of 

 infidels, which prompts grave doubts as to the 



Q 2 



